Here is a Facebook discussion I came
across yesterday afternoon.
My cousin Jonathan:
There is an
issue with same sex marriages in its title. Websters definition of marriage is
the union between a man and woman. Biblical definition of marriage is between a
man and a woman. Hence, same sex union can't be titled/labeld as a marriage.
Just Sayin!!!
His
friend Jason:
Wanna get
married?
His
friend Shawn:
And who
says it can not be labeled as such? Legally that law is called as such and any
argument against it is a waste of time as it was voted into law. And the
biblical term holds no water at all. More than likely if the Supreme Court
tosses out DOMA you could very well see Webster change the defintion.
His friend Jason:
Shawn,
you are what's wrong with this country. What morals? U should then believe and
be fine with the notion that it's ok to marry farm animals. Let's vote on that.
I hate liberal minded idiots.
His
friend Shawn:
And the
backwards, backwoods minded conservative thinking is a dead product and your
point shows it. The whole farm animal/incest argument is rediculous. Look you
can be against same sex marrage personlly but it is civil rights issue that
should neverhave been voted on. If Women'sSuffrage in 1920 and the Civil Rights
Act of 1965 had been brought to a pubic vote it would have not passed in a
large part of the country due to the ignorance and backwards thinking of some
people. But the law passed so the argument is settled.
His friend Rob:
Sorry
Jon, looks like they already changed it:
His
brother Christopher (also my cousin):
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the
opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex
in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
His
friend Jason:
The backwards backwoods conservative folk are the
ones growing your food and employing you.
His
friend Joe:
Whatever words are used, even gay couples still
deserve to celebrate their life long love for each other.
My
cousin Jonathan:
Not trying to argue against whetherr gays are
priviledged to marry or not. Just saying that if you receive a certificate
titled 'Marriage certificate' you need to be issued a new one due to incorrect
terminology.
His
friend Rob:
Chris,
most words in the English language have more than one definition and the order
in which they appear doesn't make them more or less accurate. The dictionary
definition argument hardly matters for either side though because dictionaries
are always changing to reflect common usage.
His
friend Joe:
I don't
think Marriage should be part of the government. It was such a pain in the ass
to get the certificate from the county clerk, talk about bureaucratic BS. And I
have to pay them to file that I got married, what a scam.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't want to get into that discussion on
Facebook so emailed Jonathan personally.
Jonathan,
I just saw your post about same sex
marriage. I don't want to get into a discussion about it - here or at your post
- but I wanted to be sure I was clear: You went out of your way to post your
opposition to same sex marriage, fully knowing your words would be read by the
gay and enlightened members of your family? Just Sayin!!!
Or
was your intent to be "funny"?
He responded to me a few hours later.
Actually, I voted in favor of gay marriage here
in Washington with the sole reason of family, you and Christine, in mind. I
absolutely don't see any reason why someone should be bound by any government
entity for sexual orientation, religion, etc... I was only pointing out the
contradiction of the term marriage and it's defining meaning. As stated, I didn't
seek to start any kind of argument. I did not take into account the beliefs of
others and that they would post the things they said. For that I am very sorry.
I am also very sorry for any offense that was taken.
I replied to him this morning.
Thanks for clarifying, Jonathan. I really
appreciate it.
I had heard that some people somehow shoehorned animals into the argument, but
until yesterday, I had never actually seen someone mention that point. That is
just bizarre. Thankfully, I feel that person will find himself on the wrong
side of history. In 10 (50?) years, I feel that the gay marriage debate will
seem as quaint as the debate about separate fountains for blacks.
The key rebuttal to his argument is consent. Animals cannot provide
consent and bestiality is an avenue where consent cannot be provided in a
“loving” relationship. And there are medical reasons why incest is frowned
upon. But there is no decent, scientific, medical or moral reason why two
loving, consenting, non-related adults should not be afforded the same rights
as the majority.
Gays want the same rights
as straights. Incest will still be disallowed. Bestiality will still be
disallowed. Marriage should be the committed relationship between two persons
of consenting age which is lawful in all other ways. The "slippery
slope" is all in the minds of these poor people - they are so afraid their
way of life is being threatened that they are grasping at whatever straw seems
to be waving their way.
As far as using the word “marriage” and not “civil union” or some other
substitute: Because separate but equal is not equality, and it is not good enough. "Pretty much"
has never been good enough for any minority group, and never will be. Every
citizen should be accorded equal
treatment under the law as a Constitutional right in the United States of
America. That simple. If you want to say that "marriage is just a
word," then what's the big deal?
The truth is, marriage is far more
than "just a word," and that's why it's so important.
His reply to me this afternoon.
Full
heartedly agree. With the debacle of same sex marriage for as long as it has
been going on. Down the road, someone will argue the defining meaning to be
either changed or certificates be re-issued with different terminology.
Honestly, the reason I even posted it was because I was reading an article of a
construction crew in Ohio that had to stop work because someone was up in arms
with the 'Men At Work' sign was politically incorrect.
Unfortunately,
tunnelled vision comments were made on my post, setting a negative tone to an
unattended mindset/argument, that I wasn't wanting. As a result, I have taken
the post down. I hope I did not offend Christine either. If so, I would like to
explain.
On
a side note, do you drink wine? and what is your preference? I just have one
more thing to pick up before sending off your gift.
Our
extended family picks names for Christmas. Jonathan happens to have my name
this year. My response is below.
Christine
did not see the post. I asked her. I'll see her this weekend and explain to her
anyway. There's no need to have any misinformation out there.
Sure,
I love wine. Cabernet is my favorite, but any red is fine.
Thanks,
Cuz!
And his final comments...
absolutley.
I'm glad you allowed me to explain. Thanks
